UKC

Ken Wilson is known for his strong opinions. In this guest editorial he argues that Doug Scott should be the man to lead the BMC as its new President.

As pressures mount for climbing to be an Olympic sport and bolts proliferate in Europe we need someone who is a "seasoned anti-bolt, anti-competition campaigner."

Read more at http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=1787

In reply to UKC Articles: Hilarious. First he compares the fact that some people think that climbing should be an Olympic sport with the Great Depression. The fact is that even if climbing were to become an Olympic sport this would have no effect whatsoever on the activities of 99.9% of UK climbers.

I quote from Rab's candidacy statement -

'My aims for the next three years are:

• Improve the efficiency of the BMC organisation.
• Improve communications between the BMC, its members and the outside world.
• Safeguard all forms of mountaineering, climbing and hill walking for the future'

Does that sound like the manifesto of a single issue zealot pushing for climbing to become an Olympic sport?

Time to buy some new records Ken - your old one is scratched and keeps repeating the 'no bolting' mantra.

In reply to UKC Articles: This is probably all Jack's fault for starting the rather strained US politics analogies, but:

"A far better analogy is Roosevelt/Hoover in 1932 when the great depression threatened. Scott as Roosevelt, Carrington as Hoover."

Seems ridiculous.

Firstly, we're talking about the institutional politics of a very minor sport on one hand and the history of the largest economy in world on the other. Secondly, Ken appears to have got his analogy the wrong way around. Hoover has been accused of believing in a laissez-faire approach to the economy and letting the depression deepen as a result, whilst FDR began the greatest programme of intervention and centralized control the US economy has ever seen. Secondly many seem to believe that Hoover's support for prohibition helped lose him the election. Alcohol might not have been good for the soul, but ultimately that's what many people wanted within certain limitations.

Change alcohol for bolts and think through the analogy again.

In reply to UKC Articles:

LOL, the anarchist in a bow tie picture, was it a set up?

I didn't know he even possessed a tie, never mind a bow.

In reply to UKC Articles:

With support like that, who needs an opponent ?

I think a Sarah Palin analogy is at least as applicable.

Y

In reply to UKC Articles: I'll be interested in the numbers when the votes are counted. My guess is a landslide to Rab. Places like the Climbingworks have been actively campaigning for him.
Just because Rab's ticked some sport routes lately, I don't think he's a rabid Euro Gridbolter.
I can only guess that Ken Wilson's piece is ironic, and he's actually supporting Rab, otherwise, he's out of touch.
No change there then.

In reply to John2:

>The fact is that even if climbing were to become an Olympic sport this would have no effect whatsoever on the activities of 99.9% of UK climbers.

That is hard to predict. And it is hardly a fact either way. We just don't know.

If climbing became an Olympic sport there would be increased funding for training and coaching of young climbers and that would be a big positive.

More big climbing walls, more grassroots competitions, more research in to training methods and injury prevention and treatment.

If climbing became more visible as an Olympic sport, would more people start climbing? Possibly and that can be seen as a good thing, climbing and any energetic sport can be life changing.

Climbing would become more commercialised if it had a higher profile and more participants.

Bouldering and sport climbing could become the dominant forms of climbing.

With an increase in popularity many would benefit: outdoor companies, guides, climbing media, outdoor shops.

Would any of this effect 99.9% of climbers?

Then there is possible legislation and certification - climbing is a risk sport, perhaps Big Brother might want to make it safer for us.

Who knows?

In reply to UKC Articles:

"Simon Nadin who tried competitions for a season, became "world champion" then quit ... clearly indicating to all the facile nature of such activity when compared to the real thing - Nadin's "real" and lasting achievements being his great gritstone climbs. It was this "proper" climbing that led to his prowess".


mmmmm, lets not forget that in 1980(!!) Simon Nadin on sight flashed the Groove at Malham, a 40m 8a+!

I'm not sure even Stevey Mc matched this....... although I suspect his attempt was pure O/S.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: Your points are all good ones, but I don't see that they are directly relevant to the BMC presidential election. Ken has read Rab's personal statement in which he does support the idea of climbing becoming an Olympic sport, and gone off on a frankly eccentric rant on the basis of this. Doug's attitude to the Olympic issue is unknown.

Your points re Olympic status describe the implications for the climbers of the future, and are valid. I was pointing out that for ordinary punters such as myself this is an irrelevant sideshow.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

There seems to be an assumption that if climbing were to become an Olympic sport then there would be a resultant impact on climbing among the general public. This seems to me to be totally untested. There are lots of Olympic sports which seem to have no place whatsoever among the awareness of the general public.

In the last Olympics, Brits won medals in kayaking - has there been an upsurge in interest/coaching/money? I've no idea. There has been a general increase in interest in kayaking over the last few years, but I don't know if that can be attributed to its status as an Olympic sport, or whether the (relative)success of British kayakers has resulted from the increased general awareness.

It's surely only the sports at which Brits have any success which gain in terms of popularity among the general public, and there's absolutely no guarantee that British climbers would be medal winners in any Olympic climbing comps.

In reply to tony: I believe that the recent competitive successes of the British track cycling team have resulted in an increase in interest in those esoteric disciplines, but it remains to be seen how long lived that interest is. Whether of course a British climbing team would achieve sufficient success to increase interest in the sport is another question.

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

We NEED people like Ken Wilson to remind us of the potential flip side of 'progress' (real in some cases, imagined in others). This is probably one of his more restrained set of musings.

I suspect he isn't (or at least wasn't) as out of touch with the great unwashed as you make out - otherwise, how do you account for the unrivalled longevity of the Classic/Hard/Extreme Rock series ?

In reply to UKC Articles:
"Carrington appears to be the nominee of a failed BMC faction recently re-emboldened by government pressures in the run up to the Olympics."

I've no idea where Ken gets his ideas from, but it's clear to me that he is completely out of touch. Rab was nominated because during the last three years he has worked tirelessly as a VP. He is held in very high regard by both the Executive and the National Council - so is that "failed BMC faction" ?

"This debate pushed the UIAA to breaking point in attempts of a vociferous faction to establish competition climbing as a serious Olympic event"

This debate did cause a split in the UIAA with the IFSC being formed as a result. The faction (i.e the IFSC) remains vociferous in its attempts to get climbing into the olympics. Do we want the BMC to be split a similar manner ? Would that be to the benefit or detriment of the average British climber ?

In reply to Chris the Tall: If I thought my membership fee was being used, even indirectly, to support an olympic recognition bid, I'd probably not renew again.

In reply to toad:
My understanding is this:
The BMC is affliated to both the UIAA and the IFSC, both of whom are recognised by the IOC
The IFSC wants climbing as an event in the olympics, and has passed a motion requiring all it affliates to support this
However, the BOA will only accept affliation from sports which are already olympic events, so there is limited scope for the BMC to do anything

Therefore it seems to me the logical approach is for the BMC to say it supports climbing in the olympics, thus allowing our climbers to complete in IFSC events, but leave any lobbying up to the IFSC itself

On the other hand, the BMC finds itself in the position whereby if it says no to the olympics, it is also saying no to any international competitions.

In reply to toad: At the BMC area committees so far the majority have voted in favour of climbing being recognised as an Olympic Sport.

If you attend your area meeting you can have your say.

The fact the majority want recognition shows that in a democracy the BMC should accept that opinion.

Obviously other people are not in favour but you need to vote if you want your opinion taking into consideration.

In reply to Ian Dunn:

A little off topic, but this is one of my major problems with the BMC - to attend my local area meeting would usually involve a 4 hour round car trip, plus the meeting itself. And, actually, that's more than I'm prepared to do in an evening.

In reply to UKC Articles:

Is this a storm in a tea cup I ask myself? Is there any real likelihood that climbing will become an olympic sport? Is there really a 'faction' within the BMC for whom this is some kind of holy grail? Would it actually affect British climbing in any material way if it did become an Olympic Sport?

I'm not convinced that any of these things are true. I'm also not convinced that Rab is some kind of bolt/competition/olympic zealot. Bloody hell, look at the guys CV.

What I do know is that Rab has worked tirelessly for the BMC and the general good of the climbing community for a number of years now. He's a climber through and through and, I think, is more than capable of representing all facets of out multi-dimensional sport.

However, this is easy to sort out. At the moment, all we have to go on are a couple of fairly bland manifestos, Ken's single-issue diatribe and the musings of the many on UKC. Surely it's time for Dave Turnbull to put us straight on the BMC's real position vis-a-vis our Olympic future and for both Doug and Rab to answer some of the queries on this thread.

Where are you chaps??

jh

In reply to john horscroft: It would be good to hear from Rab / Doug, but I think for good procedure/ good governance sake, Dave Turnbull shouldn't comment 'till after the election.

In reply to toad:

Maybe, but if he was to explain the current situation in the broadest possible terms, that surely wouldn't compromise the election?

jh

In reply to john horscroft: It'd be tricky to do without apparent bias because Doug has made the issue fairly central to his campaign. I think it would be prudent for employees to keep a low profile.

In reply to sutty:


My first impression was that the bow tie had been rather scrappily painted in on Microsoft Paint

In reply to toad:

OK, fair enough, but I get the distinct feeling we're not able to arrive at an informed decision until the candidates actually answer some of the points that have been raised on this excellent thread. Is there anyone out there who can get Doug and Rab to post?

jh

In reply to TonyG:

I think that they should have used one of the frames from this

http://www.rockfax.com/publications/pdfs/Wilson-Cartoon.pdf

In reply to John2: You must not forget though that competition climbers are barbarians and mark Ken word's they will be bolting the Nose before too long.

Thats basically what Ken said at an Alpine Club debate back in 1993 (or 1994) - you can check it out in the AC Journal. To my knowledge Dinas Mot has not yet been bolted and Fliss Butler (one of the leading comp climbers at the time) is still not a barbarian.

In reply to toad: Has Doug made the issue fairly central to his campaign? His only words on the topic are 'Open up a vigorous debate upon man vs. mountain or man vs. man and whether climbing should head towards the Olympics'.

We can speculate on what his views on the Olympic issue are, but so far he has only advocated a vigorous debate.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

The attics bit has changed.

Gosh this cinema screen is good for scrolling climbing porn!

In reply to John2:

Absolutely. We're basically arguing in the dark here because neither candidate has nailed there colours to the mast. This shouldn't be a single issue election, but there's a real danger of that happening.

jh

In reply to john horscroft:
>This shouldn't be a single issue election, but there's a real danger of that happening.
I agree. I would like Doug to expand on his call for greater representation on international committees. Specifically I would like to know whether he means increased funding for the already considerable number of international post holders that the BMC already has.

Just to add a bit of context. International representation used to be primarily funded by UK Sport with the BMC topping up this fund. The UK Sport grant disappeared a couple of years ago and now the BMC only funds a BMC Rep to the UIAA Council, the UIAA General Assembly and the IFSC Plenary Assembly.

I would also like to ask Ken to expand on his comment that "Scott....has been constantly active in UIAA politics" as to my knowledge Doug has not been on any UIAA Commissions since 2001 at the latest.

Graeme Alderson

In reply to sutty:

After 'the pinstriped parasite', now we have the bow-tied anarchist? Come to think of it, not a bad name for a new route...



Whatever one can say about Ken (and there is lots!) vain about his appearance he ain't. On the crags, it's the 'dragged through a hedge backwards' look.

Would think Gloria waved the monkey-suit in front of him and said, "Get. In. This. Now!"

Mick

In reply to The Climbing Works:

That's what we want Graeme, informed comment, (not to suggest for one second that the thread has been ill-informed so far!). Frankly, I'm not that interested in hearing Ken expand on his argument until i've heard what Rab and Doug have to say.

jh

In reply to john horscroft:

A sense of perspective is something that Ken lacks in the majority of the Editorial, its biased beyond the Extreme as one would expect, as such its a poor peice that I feel at least should be offset by one from a pro Rab campaigner.

The irony (and desperation) just smacks you in the face when ken trys to say that the BMC is a failing institution that is backing a pony that has indeed had a hand in its decline.

I never thought Ken would be anything but biased against Rab, but I did think slightly better of him than this garbage.

In reply to Simon:

Don't hold back Simon, tell us what you really think! Not sure I entirely agree. Ken's usual MO is to force a reaction of some kind. he's method may lack subtelty, but he's perfectly entitled to ask tough questions of our representartive body. What we need from Rab is a rebuttal or from Doug, some idea of whether he supports Ken's thesis.

over to some them, (I hope)

jh

In reply to john horscroft:

Having real trouble with his and he's this morning


Altogether now - let's call the whole thing off

jh

In reply to Simon:

It's an opinion piece Simon, called Op-Ed in the USA.

Yes we would welcome a similar piece that is pro Rab, but some said that we had already had one

http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=46675

Anyone of you capable scribes like to do a piece supporting Rab for a guest editorial?

You know how to contact me.

Mick

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Surely for the sake of balance you need someone to write a rational pro-Doug piece

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Be nice Chris. Ken's is perfectly rational. He's chosen the issues that are important to him and expressed his opinion well.

Nothing wrong with disagreeing with him.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: Is calling Fliss a barbarian (see my post at 12.13) rational?

Graeme

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Bloody hell Mick, are these guys not capable of arguing their own case?!

jh

In reply to all:

Sorry to go on about this, but if elections were decided purely on the basis of what certain commentators think the candidates stand for, we'd really be in the shit. I think this election is important, so let's hear form the candidates!!

jh

In reply to john horscroft: But isn't that the way of the world - after all its the Sun who decides who wins general elections

In reply to john horscroft:


Q. How can I find out more about the candidate for BMC President?

http://www.thebmc.co.uk/Feature.aspx?id=3024

Also we have sent an election special newsletter out to 42,800.

http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/weekly.html

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: but that's the same information from the candidates we've had already, although it's a damn site easier to find the link from here than from the BMC'c own website.

These discussions have come about as a result of the original candidates statements. Linking back to them doesn't give any extra information.

In reply to toad:

It does for those who have not read those statements, hence why we have provided links and words on the news page, in an article, in the forums, and in our newsletter.

Both candidates are welcome to expand on their views both here and at the BMC, in fact anywhere on the web so that people can learn more.

I'll email the BMC requesting that, that's all we can do.

Mick

In reply to toad:
Carrington's original manifesto (see extracts below) conveys, IMHO, a reasonable and democratic stance on the issue of (a) competition climbing generally, and(b)the Olympics. Continuing the American political analogy, Wilson's position/take on it has echoes of McCarthyism... for Communists read pro-bolters/pro-competitionists!

(a)"I have been involved in Comps Committee for the past four years and it is a facet of BMC work that does interest me. I appreciate that for many Mountaineers, Competition Climbing is a complete anathema and I completely understand that viewpoint. I sincerely believe that competition climbing is as valid a form of climbing as any other."

(b) "The issue of Climbing becoming an Olympic sport has been raised over the past few months. This has been brought about through International Federation for Sport Climbing (IFSC) who are the International Governing Body for Indoor Climbing Competitions. The statutes of IFSC states that members of IFSC should be “pursuing the Olympic ideal”. The BMC is a founder member of IFSC. I would like to find out where the members of the BMC stand on this issue."

In reply to toad:

Have you emailed the BMC and informed them of this? You area meeting comment is a bit weak as well: the trip times are normally 75 mins out and 50 mins back for us from Nottingham and you can submit written comments if you cant make it (via this site if needs be).

In reply to all

Why not read the manifestos and vote based on them and ignore the vested interests spinning away here. Both seem excellent candidates in my view and I certainly won't be pushing my preference. The role to me is more important in its outward face for the BMC as anything internally contentious is going to have to be voted for.

In reply to JSTaylor: Has this been up there all the time? If it has, I can only apologise for my complete inability to spot the document dowmload

To be explicit. Rather more about Rab here, although it is in the unfortunate form of a Word download (OI! BMC! why not PDF?. A Word download is the equivalent of unprotected sex)

http://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmcNews/media/u_content/File/your_bmc/volunteers/Ra...

In reply to Offwidth: I haven't, although I believe the issue of population centre based meetings has been discussed before. Don't know where you are or how fast you drive (and THAT'S a whole other issue - pub in the back of beyond isn't a good venue for an inclusive meeting) but I can't do S Notts to Eastern Peak in anywhere near an hour and a quarter at rush hour, though the two hours was maybe over egging.

Having said that I already do a couple of committee meetings of an evening, and I'm driving into the peak regularly for work as it is, so my interest in attending more meetings is fairly minimal. However I DO want the BMC to represent my interests at a, for want of a better word, strategic level, which means getting the top management and direction right.

FWIW I still think that means Rab, but I want openess and transparency in the process and not to lose sight of the fact that the BMC works for all its members, not just the ones who shout loudly and often.

In reply to toad:

Now protected.

Supporting Statement from Rab Carrington: Candidate for BMC President

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=349991

In reply to Rich Kirby:

Good point Rich, but a flash of The Groove in 1980 would have been truly incredible! He also gave the same treatment to Urgent Action F8a+ at Kilnsey in the same year (1990).

In reply to toad:

Mapperley Nottingham leaving at about 6.15 to Grouse (just north of Froggatt). Coming back after 11:00 on clear roads.

I notice you've ignored the point on written submissions..its all too easy to shoot off critical stuff on the internet. Doing something more productive like attending meetings, or better still guidebook work, access work etc is where I see the people who really care.

Ask not what the BMC can do for you, but what you can do for climbing.... and all that JFK out of fashion stuff.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Will both candidates be putting forward their views at the AGM?

Will the membership be given the opportunity to question the candidates?

Will Doug be there? or is he in Chamonix at the Piolets d'Or as advertised on www.planetmountain.com/files/60.pdf

Perhaps given the debate he will decide which is the most important.

In reply to Ian Dunn: Do you mean that Doug is judging at a climbing competition, well I never

On what basis can you say that the majority want recognition? Do not cite the area meetings as they are unrepresentative as, as you say, they are not attended by all BMC members. The only way you could guarantee the wishes of the majority would be by a referendum of all members.

In reply to Simon Panton nr: I seem to remember Simon never got his prize for winning the WC ? thats why he wasn't a happy man.

We need someone to represent all climbers, so sad that it is, that has to be RAB.

Stu

In reply to Ian Dunn:

Two facts to add to this swirl of discussion:



A) Doug Scott was BMC Vice President 1994-1997

B) There is an active pro-competition, pro-training group within the BMC
whom, I understand are those seeking government support. I believe that was the
main thrust and purpose of the 10 Downing Street gathering and this group,
includes some climbing wall owners (several of these being present at No 10),
trainers and ambitious climber parents.

Prior to the Number 10 meeting a number of us attempted to list things that
would be good for the sport and we received no encouragement from the BMC. The
aim appeared to go there with a hidden but very clear agenda.

That appears to be an agenda to re-invigorate climbing competition activity
within the BMC and with that, build up a demand for high level coaching. The
apparent aim appears to be joining in the Olympics with all the hype,
commercial activity and distorted priorities that would involve.

Would those who criticise me in this thread care to deny this if I am wrong?

RAB, a sitting VP will be in the know about this so if I am wrong he too may
care to deny it?

Perhaps while he is at it he might explain what the 10 Downing Street meeting
WAS all about.

Such aims, particularly if (in conjunction with the Europeans) the BMC sought
greater activity in this field would steadily and possibly irrevocably, distort
the priorities of the sport.

Doug, I believe is four-square against that trend. Rab, if I understand his
position clearly takes a generally supportive view under the banner of what he
believes is the inevitable "march of progress".

In the 1970s we had to put a brake on the "progress" of the Mountain Leadership
Certificate that threatened to take away climbing freedoms. Its champion was
Sir Jack Longland who also had the ear of government. He like Rab was a good
chap but he still was prepared to push forward ideas that certification and
tests were the way forward. Incidentally he was also a serious conventional
athlete as well (pole jumper)

Lessons learned then taught us (those involved with BMC politics) to deal very
carefully with Government and to constantly ensure that they understand the
nature of "proper" climbing which has very little to do with conventional sport
for the simple reason that it is dangerous.
--
Ken Wilson

In reply to Offwidth: I'd probably get into the peak more to climb if I lived in Mapperley. As to the your other point, I don't want to waste other peoples time and bandwdth on this thread in order to reiterate things I've said before. My position re meetings hasn't changed significantly from the discussions on the thread below.

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=313742&v=1#x4635763

If I had an area in which I thought I'd got a useful contribution to make it would probably be land management / aqcuisition, and for lots of laudable reasons, these aren't minuted fully, making any written contribution difficult.

Besides, I already attend two other land management meetings, and contrary to what they think I like my family

In reply to The Climbing Works:

Certainly appears so!

First rule of politics be present.

In reply to Ken Wilson:

I am a great supporter of 'traditional' climbing ethics and have spent most of my climbing life thoroughly enjoying bolt-free trad climbing.
I also enjoy sport climbing and competitions.
I like having the choice.
Britain is a shining example of how these (and plenty of other) climbing disciplines can and do co-exist in a vibrant and sustainable climbing scene.
Depite decades of alarmist prophesies doomsday still hasn't materialised and I don't want us to return to the 1950's in a misguided attempt to avert it.
Even though I happened to learn to climb in the 70's I don't want to return to that era either. Progress has been shown to be good.
Vote Rab.

In reply to Ken Wilson:

You forgot C

The election of a figurehead will probably have little measurable effect on real policy, even if it may create comparatively more work for those opposing some policies of the victor. This is a good motivation for those with various 'political' attachments to spin, aside from spin being good for self publicity.

These are both very good candidates, which is a very welcome change for me in an election.

In reply to Ken Wilson:

Isn't it also true that Doug was very much a figurehead Vice Pres at the time, not a working VP? Will Doug be the kind of president who spends time at the office, or is he too busy with all his other commitments? Frankly, is the choice between a hands on President and a figurehead?

jh

In reply to GrahamD:
I suspect he isn't (or at least wasn't) as out of touch with the great unwashed as you make out - otherwise, how do you account for the unrivalled longevity of the Classic/Hard/Extreme Rock series ?

I suspect that every activity has its fair share of train-spotters, so I'm not surprised by the success of that series of book. In fairness, it was well produced for the time.

In reply to Ken Wilson: Like John Arran, I like to think that climbing is a "broad church" - modern climbers have just as much fun as the diehards but on some days can be seen clipping bolts, other times at Cloggy or Gogarth, or on hard Alpine routes at other times and also out in the Greater Ranges.

For my day job I work as one of the aforementioned ML trainers who believes in the value of teaching qualifications. On my days off though I believe that I have the right to push myself, fall off, get lost, have fun, without being labelled. The climbing freedoms that you write about are being protected and strengthened by the people who are capable of engaging with politicians - and speaking with passion and conviction about the value that climbing has brought to their lives. Climbing is dangerous, but nowhere near as risky as a life unfulfilled.

If you want to know what the No.10 Downing Street event was about, the transcript of Leo Holding's speech should be your first port of call. The future of climbing is very bright but its in the hands of younger generations now. Yes there will be an expansion of activity in artificial climbing walls, but trad climbing values are as strong as ever. On this year's BMC international climbing meet, people enjoyed routes ranging from V-Diff to E7 - all climbed on-sight, and not a bolt in sight.

We can work so much more effectively if we all pull together! I'm sure that Doug and Rab could both make a fantastic president, but we have to put to bed the lie that the world is getting taken over by people who want to destroy adventure. And also the lie that "real" climbers aren't competitive. I grew up on a diet of "The Hard Years", "I Chose to climb" and "Hard Rock", but if they aren't full of jingoistic flag waving - "no spaghetti muncher is going to beat us to the summit!" then I must have misread them. Yet by contrast I watch teenagers coaching each other on boulder problems and at competitions, and I see nothing but respect and support. At international meets I see "bolt clippers" from all over the world strapping themselves onto bold trad routes and beating us at our own game! Let's stop looking for enemies and start finding friends.

Lets stop lecturing people about the traditional values of climbing, and show them those values instead. Join us at the Tremadog climbing festival in May, or any of the other BMC-organised crag clean ups that are being arranged across the whole of England and Wales. Climbers have realised that rhetoric isn't enough and are putting something back into the environment - and I don't mean bolts!

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

Who hasn't got a copy of at least one of them ? even now ?

In reply to Ken Wilson:

Hi Ken,

I'm also no big fan of competitions, certification, coaching programs, excessive bolting etc, etc.

However, we have to accept that climbing is a broad church and we must recognise that the great advantage of the BMC is its ability to represent that broad church. Electing a President (i.e. Doug) with a strong agenda that is directly in opposition to substantial sections of the climbing community will likely result in break away organisations and a significant weakening in the effectiveness of the BMC as a representative body for climbers.

I may not agree with all Rab's opinions but he is by far the better person to guide the BMC forward as a single unified body that will actually be able to represent all of us. He's old school and new school rolled into one. I suspect it would be hard to find anybody better to bridge all aspects of climbing.

I can't think of any other country that possesses an organisation that is able to communicate so effectively on behalf of an entire nation of climbers. For all its faults the BMC is somewhat remarkable in this aspect. It is in fact something that we should treasure.

cheers Hugh

In reply to UKC Articles: I am in agreement with the views of most of those in support of Rab. Ancient and modern. Climbing has always been competitive for me otherwise why bother? Climbing is challenge, enthusiasm, emotion, small failures and huge successes. Let it always be so and be suported by someone like Rab who appears to have been doing exactly what I would have liked to have done.
His recent climbing activities demonstrate he is still full of fight and will devote some of this energy into the BMC and I am sure for the better.
Vote for Rab.

In reply to Steve Long:

Dammit, Steve's said it better than I can. Frankly, Ken's diatribe has simply given his opponents all the ammunition they could possibly need. He has, to coin a cliche, shot himself in the foot by adopting the usual doom laden tone.

How's it going Steve??

jh

In reply to john horscroft: Hi John, Good thanks! long time no see. Ken knows that there's nothing like a common enemy to bring people together, and to get the silent masses active. Unfortunately he seems to be taking on that role himself this time!

In reply to Ken Wilson:
'There is an active pro-competition, pro-training group within the BMC
whom, I understand are those seeking government support. I believe that was the
main thrust and purpose of the 10 Downing Street gathering and this group,
includes some climbing wall owners'

'The aim appeared to go there with a hidden but very clear agenda'

'RAB, a sitting VP will be in the know about this so if I am wrong he too may care to deny it?

Perhaps while he is at it he might explain what the 10 Downing Street meeting WAS all about'


Is that a conspiracy theory in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me?

In reply to Ken Wilson:


hang on WHAT EXACTLY IS WRONG WITH CLIMBING COMPETITIONS??????
I accuse you personally of being somewhat elitist, seeing climbing - and probably along with it the outdoors in general - as being for a few select people. This is not the case, it is for everyone. And anything which encourages folk to take up climbing, or any other healthy activity, is a good thing. As such Climbing in the Olympics seems like a very good idea to me as does high level coaching and training. What exactly is wrong with excellence??

Yours,

Oli
X

In reply to bouldery bits:

I'd like to point out something important.

The opinions expressed on this thread are the views of the individual authors.

This is an open forum, and anyone (within our guidelines) can express themselves.

They do not reflect the views of UKC's Editor or anyone who works for UKC or UKC as an entity.

If you have opinion and want to express it, please speak up.

Mick

In reply to Ken Wilson: I think it is increasingly clear from the comments above that the distinctive ethos of UK climbing is likely to be in safe hands in the future. Yes, UK climbing has fragmented as it has developed and grown over the last thirty years or so. Yes, it is a much broader church than hitherto. That said, many of us subscribe to the same core values echoed by Doug Scott and Ken Wilson. The reality is that many climbers today are indoor climbers for whom fixed protection and competitions are central to their climbing activities. Yes it lacks the intrigue, the romance, the uncertainty, the discovery, the freedom and so many other dimensions associated with taditional climbing/mountaineering, but does it really threaten the essence of such a wonderful human activity?

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Thanks Mick

In reply to Ken Wilson:

Thank you for the first bit of common sense regarding Doug Scott. More of his caliber in the BMC over the years and many, many more people would have joined the BMC. Thanks also for the 'Guest Editorial - Ken Wilson on the BMC Presidential Election - once again, spot on.

I could'nt give a fig about the BMC (in its present form) but to watch Doug being 'talked down' by some, who are not fit to clean his boots - climbing wise, beggers belief.

In reply to john horscroft & Mick:

>he's perfectly entitled to ask tough questions of our representartive body.


Ok I'd had a bad morning & steam came out of my ears... and yes I agree H, that he IS entitled to ask tough questions of the BMC.

However its the dismissive manner of how far the BMC has come over the last 5 years that I find disrespectful to many people who have worked extremely hard to get it is where it is today:

"a failed BMC faction"

From whose viewpoint? Well Kens obviously. I could dive into a pro-BMC speach now - but its not the main issue.

I agree with both Mick in asking for a similar editorial for Rab and partly John's reply in saying why is it neccessary? Good old Journalism insticts deserting you there John? ;0)

I'd be too biased and having just lambasted Ken's blinkered views, I could hardly do Rab the justice he deserves.

I liked reading Ken's Konspiratory though, Alan James / Pokketz Cartoons -where are you when we need you??

"Fatwaaaaar"

indeed...

Si

In reply to UKC Articles:

Campaign to Re-elect the President(CREEP). Remember 1974 - is this WilsonGate?

Doug Scott is not attending the BMC AGM on 25 April at which the election occurs - he'll be in Chamonix as President of the Jury for the Golden Axes (Piolets d'Or) Awards - for mountaineering achievement.

In reply to Simon Panton nr:

Hey Simon ......ok a decade out, I mean't 1990...honest!!.... I'll get my coat.

In reply to climbright:

I could. Went to do a bit of sport at Foredale on Sunday and it is a shining example of what the BMC does for all climbers when it negotiates access agreements. Hands up any die-hard trad climbers who would fancy topping out on the main wall at Foredale!

In reply to UKC Articles: Maybe both Doug and Rab can spare the time to write a few words on UKC to clear any misunderstandings and to reiterate what exactly they would bring to the BMC and to those who love the mountains. We live in an extremely Utilitarian age, with its money making, lowest common demoninator approach to life and the world about us, the BMC needs to look beyond the fashionable, the trendy, the instant gratification/gesture politics of the metrocentric elite, and confront the philistines of the leisure industry and parochial politics, and defend not just our pleasure and enjoyment of the crags and climbing, but the importance to all people of our shrinking and vulnerable wild places.

In reply to Crank:
I've said before I would vote for Doug Scott on a previous forum, if he is not attending the agm that raises serious questions. As such unless Doug is there I will abstain/request for Reopening of nominations(I would prefer the second) if it is possible to.
I am presuming there is truth to that rumor.

In reply to climbright:



That's interesting - my first BMC Area Meeting saw Ken stating that the BMC should not be actively encouraging young people to take up climbing via climbing walls or the outdoors. I was shocked, being someone who had learned to climb when young & enjoyed & it changed my life.

So if Ken had his way - who would be the "many, many more" people who would join the BMC?

I think the local Area Meetings do a great job in tapping in to the interest of the younger end of the climbing fraternity as well as the bouldering comps etc etc...

Surely these people are important in the future of the BMC ?

Si

In reply to UKC Articles:

what will each candidate do to ensure that British standards continue to keep up with those in the rest of the world?

I don't just mean comps but all forms of climbing. Is this on any agenda, hidden or otherwise?

In reply to Simon:

Ken really said that we shouldn't actively encourage young people to start climbing?? I really don't like this Ken bloke. Why shouldn't young people climb? Ken seems to be a bit of a weirdo doesn't he?

In reply to bouldery bits:

Ken is not a weirdo, he is passionate about climbing and loves it as much as we all do.

Be careful what you read on here as regards what people say about what others said.

As regards this subject there is organic growth of climbing and artificial growth of climbing.

Organic growth is almost natural, people do things and as an off shoot that promotes climbing.

Others do things to promote climbing directly, as it will benefit them.

Partly becuase of what Ken has done and said we have climbing as it is today.

If people like Ken are not around to offer an alternative to artificial growth, climbing will rapidly change.

To what, we don't really know.

Give him the benefit of the doubt.

This discussion is not clear cut at all.

In reply to Morgan Woods:

That has nothing to do with this debate, but everything to do with individual climbers and their motivations.

Although saying that, the BMC can offer opportunities to climbers, whether that be indoors or outdoors.

In reply to The third:


Why rumour? The BMC AGM at Plas y Brenin and the Piolets d'Or ceremony at Chamonix have both advertised Doug Scott for 25 April. So has the Alpine Club for the "Spirit of Mountaineering" Commendations at Chamonix.

Faced with this choice between rocks or hard places what should he do?

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Thanks for clearing that up Mick.
Still, I feel that it is important to encourage young people to get into the sport. I do not see the growth of climbing as a negative thing at all, and, if anything growth really can only be a positive, there's enough crags out there for all of us!

Do some people not promote climbing, not for personal gain, but purely because climbing is a good thing?

Oli

In reply to Ken Wilson:


Pro-training? You mean there are some climbers who want to climb their best? How horrible!

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

I agree. Ken Wilson has done more than anyone over the past 40 years or so to enhance British climbing and mountaineering. His acerbic wisdom, his intelligent knowledge about people and events, his willingness to step forward to offer criticism and guidance and his inward modesty make Ken a special person in our community.

He promotes others who have been accorded accolades such as CBE, yet it is himself who deserves the higher accolade. Whether or not Doug Scott is elected as BMC President, a much better outcome for British mountaineering would be a Knighthood for Ken - arise Sir Ken Wilson!

In reply to bouldery bits:

Yes - climbing can be life changing. It can be a life of adventure, good health and creativity.

Well - that's what I believe.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

err it is relevant Mick or it isn't? i think standards are certainly important in a competition context (which this debate is about) so the BMC would have an interest in this. to iilustrate you would have to wonder about the BMC's investment if any in the comp scene if the results were not forthcoming.

the rest of the thread had basically been saying comps/olympics either should or shouldn't be a BMC priority, so my point above about standards in general and here about a return on investment probably are relevant and warrant more than a off-hand dismissal from you.

anyway i would probably see comps more as a means to an end....hopefully today's plastic pullers will be tomorrow's 8c/E10 crankers.

In reply to Morgan Woods:



Why the focus on these artificial single pitch rock climbing grades?

Climbing is far bigger than that.

And as you know the BMC's brief is very wide and they do a great job.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Here is a slice of what climbing is about - diversity.. of experience and each to their own.

http://www.ukclimbing.com/photos/search.html?thismonth=1&nstart=0&s...

In reply to UKC Articles:

I feel that this has all got a bit personal. I'm a big fan of Iconoclastic Ken and he fights hard for the things in which he believes and has taken principled stands in the past - something I respect in a chap. Doug is a legend and, I've no doubt, a top bloke. This isn't about personalities, it's about climbing as a broad church and peoples understanding of the BMC's role within it. Those who rail against the BMC for no apparent reason and seem to know little about how it actually functions don't deserve to be taken seriously. Ken however has an intimate knowledge of the BMC and I therefore find it mystifying that he has come to the conclusion that it is staffed with fifth columnists who lust after Olympic recognition. That's not the BMC I know. It's not the BMC as perceived by either Chris the Tall or Simon, both of whom are pretty involved too.

Where's the evidence Ken?

jh

In reply to Ken Wilson:

Hi Ken

I was involved with the National Source Group that was exploring the notion of coaching with 'mountaineering' not climbing, but mountaineering as a broad church. We discussed many things over the 16 months or so that we were looking into the thorny subject. As you won't know me I do have a vested interest in coaching, I am a Freelance Mountaineering Instructor and currently studying a MSc in Applied Sport Science. I used the research that I did for the source grouyp as part of my coursework, and was a major contributor to the final report.

During our meetings there were people who were only concerned with 'elite coaching', however the report acknowledged that there are presently thousands of young climber who are regularly coached over a long period at kids club, and that the current awards do not have anything suitably for the long term development of a climber. There is also no recommendations to help stop these young climber permanently damaging themselves through overly intense training.

In fact the majority of the report looks at these grassroots coaching at the lower level of the ability, as this is where the coaching process is needed. By the coaching process I refer to the 'science' of effectively teaching someone a skill, again this is not part of any current national governing body award.

Section of the report also look at how we can teach the traditional skill like navigation and particularly ice axe arresting. I personally think that what the move towards coaching is trying to achieve is make any instructor better at doing there job, by allow a pathway for continuing professional develop, which is the norm in virtually any other professional qualification system. The award scheme isn't going to be compulsory either, you can opt in or not to a coaching pathway. In fact the report clearly states that we acknowledge the HSE recommendations that there are four ways to show competency: official qualification, in house training, equivalent qualification and experience.





I am not sure that you did put the brakes on? The Climbing Wall Supervisor award, the Single pitch award, Walking group leader, Mountain leader (summer and winter), Mountain instructor award and certificate, International Mountain leader award and Guide. All exist, and are all very well accepted by the outdoor community that employs people who hold the awards. What qualifications offer to someone employing an instructor or coach is a little piece of mind, and what it offers the holder is the notion that they are using good practice.

Now what a qualification isn't is a defence for neglience, and nor a not having a qualification. Unfortunately the 'traditional' apprenticeship is no longer that widely used so by having instructor and coaches is a neccessary evil. In fact the government has started to promote the benefits of Learning outside the classroom, through what it has dubbed its 'Outdoor Manifesto'.

Anyway I am about to go out for a climb, so enough ranting for now. Good luck to Doug, but I will be voting for Rab
>

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Mick, i asked a question about performance and how it might fit within the BMC remit, so how else do you measure elite performance besides with top-end grades? what is a single pitch grade anyway?

if the BMC's brief is very wide, then perhaps it might include a performance aspect, which is what i was asking about. I never said they didn't do a great job so why the need to say they do? it does seems a somewhat bizarre non-sensical reply from you but i will forgive it in light of the late hour of posting.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:


So we should encourage as many people as posible to get involved!

In reply to Crank:
.

In view of Ken's grandiose analogy between the BMC election and the US presidential election, perhaps nothing short of Ken for PM would do

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Gordon, I think Ken might be attracting the 'pompous' as well as the 'grandiose' vote. Ken for PM

In reply to Rich Kirby:

>mmmmm, lets not forget that in 1980(!!) Simon Nadin on sight flashed the Groove at Malham, a 40m 8a+!

I'm not sure when teh date was exactly, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't 1980, what with The Groove not having even been bolted at the time, an' all.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously: i think that you will find it was 1990 he did Urgent Action 8a+ at Kilnsey too same year, the reason he could do those routes was dedication to hard training and he used his sports climbing and competitions to go on to try bigger routes too, like The Nose with Lynn Hill on El Cap. Simon is an excellent example of someone who enjoys and excells all aspects of climbing and I am sure doesn't belittle anyone who does any one aspect. He like Rab appreciates the the BMC has to cover a broad number of interests and keep everyone happy and not value one style of climbing over any other.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously: Keep up John (and Ian), I highlighted Mr Kirby's error way back on Tuesday:

"In reply to Rich Kirby:
>
>
>
>

Good point Rich, but a flash of The Groove in 1980 would have been truly incredible! He also gave the same treatment to Urgent Action F8a+ at Kilnsey in the same year (1990)."


I do think there is tendency by those with a 'trad or nothing' agenda to ignore the sport climbing or competition achievements of top climbers such as Simon Nadin.

It still goes on today with people like Pete Robins who tends to get referred to as a 'trad climber'. Truth is, he is a 'climber', simple as that, and one who spends just as much energy on boulder problems in Parisella's Cave, sport routes in the quarries or trad onsights. It's all just climbing and I wish people would get over the unecessary tribalistic divisions. The great thing about British climbing is its diversity.

I think you can guess who I'll be voting for at the AGM.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Well said Mick. You even put spaces between your lines yet some folk failed to read between them.

Enty

In reply to UKC Articles:

Can we please ban Sheffield inhabitants from voting? I think it's a traversty that the BMC pretend to represent climbers, when infact their role is much more gritcentric and there for not representing proper climbers.

In reply to bouldery bits:


He's not saying that they shouldn't; what could he possibly do to stop them?

As I read it he's just a bit wary of the establishment of a big-money machine dedicated to promoting a very different take on climbing to that which he loves dearly. I have some sympathy.

In reply to UKC Articles:

So Ken Wilson is pro-headpointing but anti-bolting. Certainly judging by the influential climbers he names. Does he see no cross-over between these sub-sports? Does he not notice that the leading lights particapate in both activities?

As for conventional sporting heroes, the Macleods, Pearsons, Bullocks, Braceys, Parnells are all sponsored up to the hilt. A few of them even whitter on endlessly marketing themselves. Just how conventional is that?!

In reply to UKC Articles:

I'm not too fussed who wins (although I guess I've a marginal preference for a business person...and, thinking on it, a woman would be good).

However, that's a pretty feeble article. The final line includes the word "therefore" without, as far as I can see (having read the article twice) any justification or linked argument.

In the original article on the election doug is quoted as saying that he will "Open up a vigorous debate upon man vs mountain or man vs man and whether climbing should head towards the Olympics." If he's really so anti then why waste the breath on even discussing it.

Not that it matters, but my own view is that we should keep climbing well away from the Olympics...and that, actually, BMC money shouldn't really be spent on competition in any form. However, it's now unclear to me what the candidates stand for (we need Scott to put up a manifesto too). Ken hasn't helped that, just given us another dose of "what Ken thinks"...and we've heard it before.

J

In reply to Moacs:


Premier Post - READ: BMC President Candidate Statements

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=350286

Newsletter: http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/weekly.html

Read Supporting Statement from Rab Carrington: Candidate for BMC President at http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=1794

Read Supporting Statement from Doug Scott: Candidate for BMC President at
http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=1802

We will have reminder articles/news up next week too.

In reply to UKC Articles:

Back in the dark ages Ian Parsons and I were summoned by Chairman Ken, (as apparently representatives of the Midlands...) to a meeting in Manchester to discuss climbing walls - or more precisely the lack of them. Ken led an almost military campaign to identify towns without walls and then put pressure on the local powers-that-be to provide every climber in the UK with access to a local wall. The proliferation of these is in part down to Ken. These were ironically the breeding ground of competitions and to an extent sport climbing that he now so despises. Reap, sow, leopard and spots are words that come to mind...in the nicest possible way, of course! Ken is absolutely passionate about British climbing, no doubt about that, but only his idea of it. It is obvious to me that he would argue for Doug Scott.

In reply to the Reeves, Alderson and Dunn comments and others


At Awesome Walls Stockport the other day I encountered two young climbers who
were doing a 5b-ish climb but clearly had a very weak understanding of
belaying, particularly low down on the first three clips. I asked them if they
had been to a proper crag ... somewhere like Windgather which I commended
(along with one or two other spots) as a good place to learn ones basic
protection and belay skills. The answer was no as they couldn't afford the
equipment. I suspect these two lads will go on to become accomplished sport
climbers but at the same time will they develop few of the skills and instincts
necessary for staying alive in an unequipped environment?

That is the problem... trad climbing is a good basis for learning one's skills
as it is analogous to normal driving on a normal road with all the dangers and
unexpected events that implies. Sport climbing and competitions are rather like
learning to climb on a Grand Prix circuit, very fast, hard and sexy but not the
same as driving on a normal road and learning as we develop our judgements and
confidence. Very few of us wish to be champions, but we do seek competence
judgement skills.

I think the latest range of comments confirm my suspicions of a faction within
the BMC wishing to push more competitions and more coaching to support
competitors in such events and others seeking to excel in sport climbing.

Scott, incidentally, is a Piolet d'Or judge. These consider, usually, major
feats of alpinism, the real highpoints of the year's climbing (test matches
rather than 20-20). He intends to urge reform there too by commending the idea
that there should be no clear winner and that all the selected climbers should
get it as it is invidious to name a winner from among a mixed bag of
outstanding "proper" (usually alpine or Himalayan) climbs. The sport climbers,
climbing walls, competition organisers etc love the clear cut winners standing
garlanded on their podiums but they should know that such feats, though
certainly involving a high level of athletic skill and determination, are a
form of "fool's gold". Most of us still know who the true "champions" are ..
they are those who go boldly forth on rock, snow and ice and overcome, with all
its uncertainties, the unknown (both Rab and Doug in the past have been such
figures and I notice that Nick Colton in this month's CLIMB, has reminded us of
two others from the past ... Gordon Smith and Tobin Sorenson for their climbs
on the Eiger and the Grandes Jorasses in the 1970s).

But top performance really takes place on memorable occasions for climbers of
all grades and ages. We all know when we have pulled of such a feat in our own
level of climbing and we are proud of it, and our peers celebrate with us. That
is what makes the sport so fine and, incidently, it includes bouldering and is
probably a good reason for that activity's increased popularity.

The general tenor of these responses (particularly those from trainers and
climbing wall owners) merely increase my anxiety about the "hidden agenda"
supporting the Carrington candidacy. But anyway, at least whole matter is now
getting a full airing.

Ken Wilson

In reply to Ken Wilson:


I'm sorry but that's just ill thought out. I could equally well state that sport climbing is a good basis for learning ones skills for trad climbing because it allows you to get used to the basics of rope management, lead climbing etc without the additional risks that come with trad climbing.

Also, whats wrong with just being a competent sport climber, if you have no trad ambitions?

In reply to Ken Wilson:
I learnt the old fashioned way - join a club, try and persuade someone to take you out, work out a few basic techniques, almost kill myself through stupidity etc etc

But I don't feel contempt for the new generation of wall bred climbers, I feel envy. I wish there had been walls (and particularly places like the Climbing Works) when I was younger. And I wish I received some decent coaching when I started out. Not so I could mount some podium - that was never going to happen - but because I now enjoy my climbing (both trad and sport, indoor and out) more as a result. There seems to be some misconception at the moment that coaching is inextricably linked to comps - I don't view it like that myself.

So what if some people get very good indoors but never venture outside ? Or if they only ever climb bolts rather than trad. That's their loss. Are you trying to scare us all we the spectre of bolts on Stanage again ? Sorry, but the popularity of the crag this weekend tells me that trad climbing is alive and more popular than ever.

And finally, I am not a coach, instructor or climbing wall owner. I have no professional intrest in climbing. But I do know that your "hidden agenda" stuff is just laughable. Rab has put in a lot of excellant and unpaid work for the BMC during his 3 year term as vice-president, simple as that.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Seconded

jh

In reply to Chris the Tall:
I entirely agree.
I started out on trad too, and for years it scared me silly. There were some years when I hardly climbed at all and it took a long time to build up to leading. That changed when I got to know a woman who led competently up to E2. Her advice was that I should train at walls, and that advice pretty much revolutionised my climbing.
Walls do provide a limited subset of the techniques required, but they are brilliant for confidence and upper body strength.
Recently I have had some coaching too, and yes, in the last couple of years I've climbed sport too. It's a fantastic way to focus on movement and technique without the head thing getting too much in the way, and back on trad the difference shows.
I'm an advocate of coaching, at all levels. People benefit from understanding about movement and foot placement, and body positions and fluidity. They benefit from knowing about warm-ups and rest. In other sports people get coached. You wouldn't just point kids at gymnastic equipment and say "there you are, work it out for yourself" so why should climbing be any different?

In reply to Ken Wilson: I think I may change my allegiance. Doug getting elected will, in my opinion, lead to a less effect BMC, which in turn could lead to reduced access to crags. As a climbing wall owner obviously this would benefit me as climbers would be forced indoors even more. So vote for Doug.

Only joking but how's that for a hidden agenda - it's about as believable as your conspiracy theory.

I might even have to dig out that phial of foot and mouth that I have been saving for a special occasion

In reply to AlisonS: I don't think Ken was saying there was anything wrong with coaching, training and the like, the main thrust of his argument as I saw it was that the proliferation of 'champions' and competition based climbing is not in keeping with the personal responsibility, personal challenge nature of climbing.

In reply to others
There is something wrong with people wanting climbing experiences to be a sport for all environment - the nature of the activity is not one of sport for all like basketball or swimming could be. It requires a certain desire to put oneself in a risky situation, there's no need to encourage dumbing down of risk though fixed protection etc to appeal to people who don't want the whole physical and psychological challenge of climbing. Having more competitions and a competition/champion based ethos may lead to this as the physical is emphasised over the psychological.

In reply to MattG:


That sounds quite elitist, and to my ears total nonsense.

The notion of one encouraging the 'dumbing down' of the other is quite ridiculous. It sounds like the remnants of an argument that was finished along time ago.

PS Sport climbing takes a bit of psychological as well physical effort too...

In reply to MattG: Not quite quick enough

>the psychological side of trad climbing is very important but can take time and personal investment to become ok at ....

>... It is not elitist to suggest that it takes time and effort to


guess which word can easily be substituted for 'sport' ?

In reply to ChrisC:

Pants, I deleted my reply, and it was well thought out and all.

here's the gist of it for what it's worth;

Different climbs require different physical and psychological skills, just because I am not up to a hard and bold route doens't mean it should be altered (either in terms of the holds or protection possibilities) just so I can now. It is about meeting the challenge of the rock, not dumbing it down.

Therefore climbing is not a sport for all. Not everyone wants risk in their sport, plenty of people play football or basketball or whatever instead. If you read what I said I said there is no need to encourage the dumbing down of risk through adding more fixed gear. People should climb routes they want to where they have the physical and psychological skill set to so do.

Suggesting otherwise is the same as saying ok, let's chisel this route or add a bolf because I can't do it now. That is short sighted and selfish.

In reply to David Peters:

Ah, deleting it was a mistake anyway!

I don't have a problem with sport climbing, I just wish to see a balance of the activities. Globally there is not, although in this country there is a balance of both styles. Overseas many fine trad challenges have been made less by bolts. At the same time bolts allow exciting climbing on steep limestone etc.

In reply to MattG:


But that isn't whats happening actually out there on UK crags. Yeah ok there may be the odd local example depending upon your points of view but for the most part then both sport and trad live happily side by side - sometimes even on the same crag and both give us the rich variety of cragging we have in this country. Something for everyone (well most)...


No, it isn't.


But this all really is at a bit of a tangent to the thread. My general view is that it would be at the detriment of British climbing if someone who was short sighted enough to believe some of the anti sport / wall /competition stuff higher up this thread. There is a place for all these activities and plenty more under the umbrella of "climbing", and someone that respects that wealth of variety can only be a good thing.

As for the conspiracy stuff - utter rubbish. It barely even deserves a response, but if that is what is truly believed then to me it just shows how out of touch some people are. For the variety and good of all forms of British climbing then the choice is an obvious one.

In reply to ChrisC:



yes it is


I agree, this conversation is at a tangent to the original thread, but it is important to keep the heritage we have in this country of climbing being a physical and psychological activity, not a purely physical one, as it is in large parts of Europe.



I don't have a clue what all the conspiracy stuff is about and frankly I don't care, I don't think there is a conspiracy.

In reply to MattG: the "yes it is" because altering a route by placing bolts devalues the psychological challenge just as chipping a hold devalues the physical.

As I said earlier, I have no issue with sport climbing but I do have a huge issue with fixed protection proliferation. Some routes are dangerous and some people (not saying you btw!) need to get over that fact.

In reply to MattG:


I've been trying to get my head around it too and I don't really understand what it means.

I suppose the suggestion is that one or both of the candidates got together with like-minded friends and said "if I stand will you support me?"

Is that not what they are supposed to do?

It might be more sinister if a group of people with a particular axe to grind got together and pushed a candidate forward because they thought they could manipulate events that way; but I don't see anything like that going on here. Just healthy, democratic debate, and two very interesting and experienced candidates who have both demonstrated good ability to articulate their case.

In reply to AlisonS:

Sorry - maybe I used the wrong terminology... I was refereing to the end of Ken's last post where he refers to the hidden agenda and it was GraemeA that jokingly used the phrase conspiracy theory

In reply to UKC Articles:

Maybe wilson is pro Carrington? It's the best reason I can think of to spout such patent nonsense in 'support' of Scott. Bit of an own goal if he really is pro Scott.